netdev - Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 18 May 2007 08:59:26 -0700
From:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To:	David Acker <dacker@...net.com>
CC:	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	John Ronciak <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and
 el bits)

David Acker wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> David Acker wrote:
>>> David Acker wrote:
>>>> Done.  Below is a patch against 2.6.22-rc1.  It combines removing the 
>>>> s-bit patch and applying the patch I previously sent.
>>> Oops.  I missed one state in that patch.  Since the el-bit buffer will 
>>> normally not complete due to a zero size, we need to check if the 
>>> buffer with no data has the el-bit set.  Without this, you have to 
>>> wait for the interrupt.  Sorry about that...this was in the code I 
>>> tested on my embedded system but got lost in the regular kernel patch.
>> OK. Thanks.
>>
>> If you don't mind I'm going to have some testing on this patch done for 
>> a bit now (mostly x86 hardware of course) to see if there's no pitfalls 
>> in it. It'll be a few days because of the weekend before I get back on it.
>>
> 
> Cool.  I will see if I can get some more tests running over the weekend on our PXA255 
> platform.

First impression just came in: It seems RX performance is dropped to 10mbit. TX 
is unaffected and runs at 94mbit/tcp, but RX the new code seems to misbehave and 
  fluctuate, dropping below 10mbit after a few netperf runs and staying there...

ideas?

Auke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html